Mcdonald's Second Amendment Essay

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.

The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports. In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided.

The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad.

The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791. It allows American citizens to bear arms. We are talking about this issue because of what happened with the Parkland shooting. To this day, one of the top deadliest shootings that occurred here in the States is when Nikolas Cruz, a 19- year old had access to an AR-15. He managed to kill 17 innocent students and faculty leaving the entire school with a traumatic experience that one will never forget. These two sides create a controversial debate. On the one hand, some people believe that banning assault rifles is our best bet in decreasing crimes. On the other hand, people believe that not banning assault rifles will change anything. An Armalite rifle 15 (AR-15) is a lightweight semi-automatic

The second amendment of the constitution, the right to bear arms is a heated subject

Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH...Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008. The court case went up to the Supreme Court, where it was decided

When the second amendment was created, the nation was in political turmoil. America’s thrown together militia could not withstand the power of England’s large standing army. The founding fathers feared that a government, which constantly experienced corruption brought about by years of servitude to the crown, could use a coordinated army that could enforce its will. But, as stated the militia that America had was not able to enforce its will, so as a counter, the founders decided that its citizens needed to be able to protect itself. To be able to preserve it’s people’s liberties, the founding fathers found it essential for the entire nation to bear arms, so even without the militia the people could stand

In the First amendment, we are guaranteed the freedom of speech, petition, assembly, religion, and press. There is three of these rights that are most important to me which are religion, speech, and assembly. We are guaranteed these rights; however, there is circumstances.

As part of its strategy to enjoin the NAACP from operating, Alabama required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the state. The NAACP argued that this violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”(Strasser).

Two years ago, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that District of Columbia’s law which banned its citizens from keeping a handgun in their home violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When looking back on this case, it must be noted that the Supreme Court did not clearly define whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the States, since the District of Columbia is a federal territory, run solely by Congress. Fast forward to today in Oak Park, which is a suburb of Chicago, they have laws in place that ban almost all citizens from possessing a handgun. Otis McDonald, Adams Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson filed a suit against the city, stating this ban has left them without a proper tool for self-defense against criminals, and that it violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Imagine a situation where a family is enjoying a movie at their house and someone breaks in with a gun. The family should not have to worry because they have the right to own a gun. However, if those guns were taken away, the family would have no option except be scared. In many cities where gun control laws have been put into place, crime rates went through the roof. Criminals know that they can get guns, however, the citizens cannot. These laws infringe upon the second amendment, which states ‘‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’ (Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States, Taft-Hartley Act). If gun control laws were put into place across the nation, Americans would no longer have a militia if it was ever needed. By examining the issues surrounding gun control it is clear that prohibiting guns is not the answer to stopping violent crimes from happening; it only restricts law abiding citizens from protecting themselves.

The debate of gun control presents an ethical dilemma in deciding which rights afforded by the US Constitution are more important. The ethical debate places the rights afforded in the Second Amendment to bear arms against the rights afforded in the First Amendment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ethical predicament has roots in societal views of violence and how it is observed by both sides of the debate.

After reading Professor Randy Barnett’s piece, you truly have to question whether his original intent was to offer a simple review, or to denounce the credibility of H. Uviller and William Merkel. Randy Barnett’s underlying tone becomes immediately apparent to any engaged reader as he exposes the blatant opinion-filled diatribe hidden under the guise of a historical, educational book. Out of the gate, tongue in cheek, Barnett alludes to the idea of the original author’s misrepresentation of who they were and the sources they’ve collected. He portrays Uviller and Merkel, two scholars from Duke University, as confused amateur authors with little substance. If nothing else, Professor Barnett looks to discredit or possibly even scold Uviller and Merkel for trying to push

The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence. Although there are rules and regulations already in place there still is a lot of crime occurring, because laws on gun